H
Happy29
Guest
SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 19) (AP) - The federal appeals court that postponed California's Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election agreed Friday to reconsider, taking the voters - and the candidates - on another dip on the legal roller-coaster.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced without explanation that it would convene an 11-member panel on Monday for a hearing on when to hold the election that will decide Gov. Gray Davis' fate.
The decision came four days after a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court ruled that the Oct. 7 election must be postponed because some counties were planning to use the error-prone punch-card ballots that caused such a mess in Florida in 2000. The panel cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore as the main basis for its decision.
Some legal experts said Friday's decision suggests the court has serious misgivings about the postponement and may be inclined to let the election go ahead next month. The 11-judge panel, chosen by lottery, includes eight judges appointed by Democrats, seven of them by President Clinton.
The court's ruling could be further appealed to the Supreme Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other minority or civil rights groups argued that punch-card ballots would cause up to 40,000 votes to go uncounted in six counties. Months ago, the counties promised to switch to electronic voting machines in time for the March 2 statewide primary.
The recall ballot includes two questions: The first is whether to remove Davis and the second is who should replace him if the governor is ousted. Several candidates are running to replace Davis, including Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock. If Davis loses, he will be only the second governor in U.S. history to be ousted.
Word of the rehearing came as Davis campaigned in Los Angeles with former Vice President Al Gore, in part to draw a connection between the special election and the circumstances of Gore's own defeat in 2000.
Gore lost Florida - and thus the presidency - in a disputed election that made ''hanging chads'' a household term.
''I'm so grateful that Al Gore is here because what's happening in California really began when they tried to impeach Bill Clinton,'' Davis said. ''Al Gore should have been president of the United States and nobody can speak with more clarity as to what the Republicans are doing around the country to overturn legitimate elections they lost the first time around.''
Davis also said he would prefer the election be held next month - the first time he has said so. Some observers have said the delay would benefit Davis because it would give him more time to deal with California's problems.
''I believe we will beat the recall on Oct. 7,'' Davis said. ''My attitude is, let's just get it over with, let's just have this election on Oct. 7, put this recall behind us so we can get on with governing the state of California.''
Schwarzenegger, the leading Republican candidate, applauded the appeals court's move. ''California officials have made it clear that they can administer a fair election on Oct. 7,'' he said in a statement.
Mark Rosenbaum, ACLU legal director, said the group was disappointed with the court's move. He said the election should be delayed until the March presidential primary; otherwise, some voters will be using outdated polling mechanisms that ''in a few months, you can buy at a garage sale.''
One expert who follows the 9th Circuit, University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor Arthur Hellman, suggested the court is rehearing the case because a majority of the judges think the ''decision is wrong or open to serious question.''
Between 1994 and 1999, the court reheard 65 cases with the 11-judge panels, according to a Hellman study. The larger panel reversed or altered the outcome of the three-judge panels 49 times, according to the study.
''Based on the track record, you would expect the (11-judge panel) to allow the election to go forward as scheduled,'' he said.
Vikram Amar, a Hastings College of the Law legal scholar who also follows the court, said that the composition of the 11 judges chosen at random also favors a different outcome.
''I'll be surprised if they come out the same way the three judges did,'' Amar said. ''Then again, who knows what they are going to do.''
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced without explanation that it would convene an 11-member panel on Monday for a hearing on when to hold the election that will decide Gov. Gray Davis' fate.
The decision came four days after a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court ruled that the Oct. 7 election must be postponed because some counties were planning to use the error-prone punch-card ballots that caused such a mess in Florida in 2000. The panel cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore as the main basis for its decision.
Some legal experts said Friday's decision suggests the court has serious misgivings about the postponement and may be inclined to let the election go ahead next month. The 11-judge panel, chosen by lottery, includes eight judges appointed by Democrats, seven of them by President Clinton.
The court's ruling could be further appealed to the Supreme Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other minority or civil rights groups argued that punch-card ballots would cause up to 40,000 votes to go uncounted in six counties. Months ago, the counties promised to switch to electronic voting machines in time for the March 2 statewide primary.
The recall ballot includes two questions: The first is whether to remove Davis and the second is who should replace him if the governor is ousted. Several candidates are running to replace Davis, including Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante and Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock. If Davis loses, he will be only the second governor in U.S. history to be ousted.
Word of the rehearing came as Davis campaigned in Los Angeles with former Vice President Al Gore, in part to draw a connection between the special election and the circumstances of Gore's own defeat in 2000.
Gore lost Florida - and thus the presidency - in a disputed election that made ''hanging chads'' a household term.
''I'm so grateful that Al Gore is here because what's happening in California really began when they tried to impeach Bill Clinton,'' Davis said. ''Al Gore should have been president of the United States and nobody can speak with more clarity as to what the Republicans are doing around the country to overturn legitimate elections they lost the first time around.''
Davis also said he would prefer the election be held next month - the first time he has said so. Some observers have said the delay would benefit Davis because it would give him more time to deal with California's problems.
''I believe we will beat the recall on Oct. 7,'' Davis said. ''My attitude is, let's just get it over with, let's just have this election on Oct. 7, put this recall behind us so we can get on with governing the state of California.''
Schwarzenegger, the leading Republican candidate, applauded the appeals court's move. ''California officials have made it clear that they can administer a fair election on Oct. 7,'' he said in a statement.
Mark Rosenbaum, ACLU legal director, said the group was disappointed with the court's move. He said the election should be delayed until the March presidential primary; otherwise, some voters will be using outdated polling mechanisms that ''in a few months, you can buy at a garage sale.''
One expert who follows the 9th Circuit, University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor Arthur Hellman, suggested the court is rehearing the case because a majority of the judges think the ''decision is wrong or open to serious question.''
Between 1994 and 1999, the court reheard 65 cases with the 11-judge panels, according to a Hellman study. The larger panel reversed or altered the outcome of the three-judge panels 49 times, according to the study.
''Based on the track record, you would expect the (11-judge panel) to allow the election to go forward as scheduled,'' he said.
Vikram Amar, a Hastings College of the Law legal scholar who also follows the court, said that the composition of the 11 judges chosen at random also favors a different outcome.
''I'll be surprised if they come out the same way the three judges did,'' Amar said. ''Then again, who knows what they are going to do.''